Can Nadal get 25 Majors

GabeT

Legend
Likelihood has nothing to do with who would actually. The best you can do it guess and hope you are right. But you can't know. All we know for knowing are the data. The data say Nadal > Djokovic at USO.
you don’t work with data i see
 

GabeT

Legend
Actually I do :). Probably a lot more than you do.
there is no debate here because we can check the odds online. Novak is ahead of everyone else for the USO and by a lot.

and if you had to bet on who would win today at the USO between Nadal and Djokovic no one would look at data from 7 or 10 years ago. The recent data is clear, Novak is much better at HC. This is no guarantee of success but Novak is, and rightly so, the favorite today between the two.
 

PilotPete

Professional
there is no debate here because we can check the odds online. Novak is ahead of everyone else for the USO and by a lot.

and if you had to bet on who would win today at the USO between Nadal and Djokovic no one would look at data from 7 or 10 years ago. The recent data is clear, Novak is much better at HC. This is no guarantee of success but Novak is, and rightly so, the favorite today between the two.
Who is favourite has nothing to do with who actually wins. In 2013, Novak was favoured to win the USO. What happened?
 

GabeT

Legend
Who is favourite has nothing to do with who actually wins. In 2013, Novak was favoured to win the USO. What happened?
So you really don’t know what we are talking about. Why did you decide to comment if you don’t know what being a favorite means?
 

PilotPete

Professional
So you really don’t know what we are talking about. Why did you decide to comment if you don’t know what being a favorite means?
What are you talking about? I never used the word favourite. You did. I simply said Nadal is better at the USO than Djokovic because he has achieved more. If their careers ended today, Nadal > Djokovic at the USO. Period.
 
Last edited:

itrium84

Professional
With Nadal seemingly untouchable at FO no matter what they throw at him to stop him, and almost as unbeatable in New York if he is playing well and fit and given the Next Gen are fast becoming Lost Gen can Nadal get his 25 Major haul that he has on occasion hinted is his goal. Hard to see him not getting at least 2 more FOs and 1 more USO which leaves him just 2 short and given Nadals personality what he wants...he gets.
He can, of course. It's unlikely, but if stars align just the right way, he can add any of GS titles under his belt. 1 or 2 or even 3 more RG would be no surprise.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
He can, of course. It's unlikely, but if stars align just the right way, he can add any of GS titles under his belt. 1 or 2 or even 3 more RG would be no surprise.
Cannot believe the state of the tour most people think its on. Nadal now compared to 2010 its not even same player.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Your statement makes it look like Djokovic was fit and healthy all of those last four years. Djokovic wasn't there in 2017 either, and in 2019 he was injured, just like Nadal in 2018 pulled out after going down 2-0.

What hurts Djokovic is that he stupidly got himself DQ'd last year, something Nadal would never do.
Yes but Nadal has the better recent record so there is no evidence Djokovic would beat him.
As for the DQ personally i think that was politically motivated.
 

dellealpi10

Rookie
I think Nadal can win 2 more Roland Garros and 1 outside clay, which is Wimbledon maybe. He can finish at 23. About 25? I doubt it.

However, even Nadal finish at 23, I doubt Djokovic can surpass him. It is uneasy for Djokovic to win more 5 slams. You can see Djokovic to play fantastic at AUO2021 final. However, he played rusty in previous rounds and might be knocked out before Final. Furthermore, 3/4 recent slams of Djokovic is at AU. Yes, he is the favorite of Wimbledon and USO, but he only won 1/5 recents slams outside AUO from 2019.

Djokovic usually play AUO at his best, then decline step by step when the year is going on. He played at Wim worse than AUO, then play USO worse than Wim.

23 Slams is enough for Nadal to be the GOAT
 

octobrina10

G.O.A.T.
With Nadal seemingly untouchable at FO no matter what they throw at him to stop him, and almost as unbeatable in New York if he is playing well and fit and given the Next Gen are fast becoming Lost Gen can Nadal get his 25 Major haul that he has on occasion hinted is his goal. Hard to see him not getting at least 2 more FOs and 1 more USO which leaves him just 2 short and given Nadals personality what he wants...he gets.
Rafa didn't say his goal is to win 25 GS titles. He said: "I would love to finish my career with 25 [GS singles titles], if it's possible....Let's see. I hope to keep produce myself opportunities in the next couple of years." (Rafa tends to use 'a couple' instead of 'a few' or 'some'.)
From 01:20 onwards in the video:
 

beard

Hall of Fame
I think Fedalovic fans all agree the state of the mens tour is dire apart from them.
The fact Federer is already 2nd Fav at W after a year out and at 40 says it all.
Why is that a fact? Why said he is 2nd favorite and how he proved his theory?
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
The thing I don't like is how much people are discounting him at Wimbers. He made semis the last 2 times it was played people. He can probably get 1 more before he's out and done.
He'll always be vulnerable there to big servers because his moronic strategy of returning from the trenches.

It makes him unable to break, and thus he needs to win tie breaks, where his old age will disadvantage him.

He basically threw that semi vs Fed.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Which is why I don't really like to compare eras, as if it was a level playing field in every aspect.
Well, here is my philosophy. It it rains more in my county, I can conclude that there is more rainfall where I live, or just that if I look at a wide enough area, over enough years, it's pretty even. Sort of like how many hurricanes we get.

I figure the amount of talent in any give 5 year period is probably about the same, but anomalies make it appear uneven. Like in 2000-2003 the top 100 players were probably not weaker, but the distribution was more even and with fewer standout players right at the top.

You hear Groundhog Day here daily. Fed was a weak era champion, and right now is the worst tennis in the history of the world, and that's the only reason the top guys are winning. I would say that in the next 10 years or so, if it is obvious that the level of guys in the top 20 is lower, all of them, then something has happened to drive down the level. But I want to see that first. Otherwise I conclude that a bunch of nasty, small-minded people are just being stupid.

That means that as long as Novak goes on winning, even though he is not my favorite player to watch, I'm just going to give me full credit. Like in the AO this year, to me it seems pretty obvious now that he had that muscle tear, and the way he came back is impressive. You will never hear me say a word about weak eras or GOATS. I think that's all nonsense.

But the one thing I will say, from being much older than most people here: If you compare tennis at the beginning of the open era, it was a different sport. You had guys winning without personal trainers and private coaches (Laver and Rosewall), playing on soft, uneven grass, using rackets that were heavy clubs, canvas "tennis shoes", no MRIs and advanced surgery, just gut. Those guys were TOUGH. If you look at the tennis, it's like trying to judge a pianist playing on a harpsichord and then saying the harpsichord player doesn't sound like a modern pianist. Or hearing someone play natural horn (no valves) and then concluding that people playing on modern horns (two sets of valves) are "better players" because they don't miss notes.

If you know it was a different sport, then you compare those guys against the guys they competed with, in that sport. Then you realize that even if the 90s look a lot more like today, it's just a matter of degree. So that's why I never compare Laver with Pete with the Big 3. It's a totally unfair comparison unless you actually played with that old stuff (I did.)
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
He'll always be vulnerable there to big servers because his moronic strategy of returning from the trenches.

It makes him unable to break, and thus he needs to win tie breaks, where his old age will disadvantage him.

He basically threw that semi vs Fed.
A moronic strategy is one that doesn't work well on one surface, and doesn't work at all on the others. Blaming Nadal for using what works on clay and adapting it well enough to win some slams on faster surfaces merely means that he is unable to completely change is style. But name me someone who has done that.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Well, here is my philosophy. It it rains more in my county, I can conclude that there is more rainfall where I live, or just that if I look at a wide enough area, over enough years, it's pretty even. Sort of like how many hurricanes we get.

I figure the amount of talent in any give 5 year period is probably about the same, but anomalies make it appear uneven. Like in 2000-2003 the top 100 players were probably not weaker, but the distribution was more even and with fewer standout players right at the top.

You hear Groundhog Day here daily. Fed was a weak era champion, and right now is the worst tennis in the history of the world, and that's the only reason the top guys are winning. I would say that in the next 10 years or so, if it is obvious that the level of guys in the top 20 is lower, all of them, then something has happened to drive down the level. But I want to see that first. Otherwise I conclude that a bunch of nasty, small-minded people are just being stupid.

That means that as long as Novak goes on winning, even though he is not my favorite player to watch, I'm just going to give me full credit. Like in the AO this year, to me it seems pretty obvious now that he had that muscle tear, and the way he came back is impressive. You will never hear me say a word about weak eras or GOATS. I think that's all nonsense.

But the one thing I will say, from being much older than most people here: If you compare tennis at the beginning of the open era, it was a different sport. You had guys winning without personal trainers and private coaches (Laver and Rosewall), playing on soft, uneven grass, using rackets that were heavy clubs, canvas "tennis shoes", no MRIs and advanced surgery, just gut. Those guys were TOUGH. If you look at the tennis, it's like trying to judge a pianist playing on a harpsichord and then saying the harpsichord player doesn't sound like a modern pianist. Or hearing someone play natural horn (no valves) and then concluding that people playing on modern horns (two sets of valves) are "better players" because they don't miss notes.

If you know it was a different sport, then you compare those guys against the guys they competed with, in that sport. Then you realize that even if the 90s look a lot more like today, it's just a matter of degree. So that's why I never compare Laver with Pete with the Big 3. It's a totally unfair comparison unless you actually played with that old stuff (I did.)
You pretty much summed up my thoughts on this. For all of us who have seen the many eras, it makes sense.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
You pretty much summed up my thoughts on this. For all of us who have seen the many eras, it makes sense.
Just to enlarge. We know the future is a mystery. No one knows for sure what will happen next. But for some reason people are very confident about putting the present into a meaningful context, and that never works. We only get context about the past, because there we can compare with the more distant past and with what happened next.

So I think we do a pretty good job of putting the past into context. I can say, with a great deal of confidence, who the greatest composers of the past were because we have had so much time to make judgements. Beethoven really was as good as he is made out to be. But if you pick someone just starting out, now, you have no idea what the world will think of that person's music 50 or 100 years from now. So I think for meaningful context we need at least around 50 years, minimum. That says, for instance, that The Beatles are probably going to be popular for a long time because my generation was listening to that music, but teenagers are still discovering some of it, and that is regardless of whether or not you or I like that music.

But if you try to figure out what music popular right now will be popular in 50 or 100 years, you will be wrong, and so will I. With less than 50 years things are unstable and unpredictable. No one seems to argue about Laver simply because of how long ago 1969 was. There is no doubt about how he stood in relationship to his contemporaries. But Sampras? He was the GOAT (as stupid as that always was), and his stock plummeted. Now it's almost popular to make Fed out to be almost a failure, weak era champion, choker and so on. If I had to wager I'd guess Sampras is going to be looked at with a lot more respect in the future, and the current Big 3 will not be seen as the beginning and end of everything important. We may even see them ridiculed as "just those old players in the the beginning of the 21st century", but then slowly they will fall into place as the great players they are - among many others.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
guys from sumo also alowed to take part in wrestling world?:Dthat's news to me, but considering i'm not aware of that world at all, it shouldn't be a big surprise though, perhaps
Look how he got that leg up lol, epic. U need to get into it Alexio :) (btw he wasn't a sumo wrestler that's just his character but he made it believable af)
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Just to enlarge. We know the future is a mystery. No one knows for sure what will happen next. But for some reason people are very confident about putting the present into a meaningful context, and that never works. We only get context about the past, because there we can compare with the more distant past and with what happened next.

So I think we do a pretty good job of putting the past into context. I can say, with a great deal of confidence, who the greatest composers of the past were because we have had so much time to make judgements. Beethoven really was as good as he is made out to be. But if you pick someone just starting out, now, you have no idea what the world will think of that person's music 50 or 100 years from now. So I think for meaningful context we need at least around 50 years, minimum. That says, for instance, that The Beatles are probably going to be popular for a long time because my generation was listening to that music, but teenagers are still discovering some of it, and that is regardless of whether or not you or I like that music.

But if you try to figure out what music popular right now will be popular in 50 or 100 years, you will be wrong, and so will I. With less than 50 years things are unstable and unpredictable. No one seems to argue about Laver simply because of how long ago 1969 was. There is no doubt about how he stood in relationship to his contemporaries. But Sampras? He was the GOAT (as stupid as that always was), and his stock plummeted. Now it's almost popular to make Fed out to be almost a failure, weak era champion, choker and so on. If I had to wager I'd guess Sampras is going to be looked at with a lot more respect in the future, and the current Big 3 will not be seen as the beginning and end of everything important. We may even see them ridiculed as "just those old players in the the beginning of the 21st century", but then slowly they will fall into place as the great players they are - among many others.
Things and perceptions do change over time, I would agree on that. Though I do feel sometimes we become guilty of being so caught up in the moment and present day events, that we often do not take into consideration how massive certain things in the past were, simply because we have not lived through it.
 

alexio

Hall of Fame
Look how he got that leg up lol, epic. U need to get into it Alexio :) (btw he wasn't a sumo wrestler that's just his character but he made it believable af)
would be better to call alex, if you don't mind..alexio is too formal:D..btw, interesting what hitman' name in real life (outside this forum):D
 
With Nadal seemingly untouchable at FO no matter what they throw at him to stop him, and almost as unbeatable in New York if he is playing well and fit and given the Next Gen are fast becoming Lost Gen can Nadal get his 25 Major haul that he has on occasion hinted is his goal. Hard to see him not getting at least 2 more FOs and 1 more USO which leaves him just 2 short and given Nadals personality what he wants...he gets.
Nope
 

D.Nalby12

Legend
Unlikely. I see 24 max for him (3 FO + 1 other). He is getting worse and worse off clay - so hard to see him picking more than one. He is still very good on clay but how long he can continue it ? 2-3 more FOs seems reasonable. But he may well win it till he becomes 40. So who knows. Slim chance but still you can't rule him out.
 

Enceladus

Legend
It is possible that Nadal will not win another USO title due to a change in HC type. USO changed the surface from Deco Turf to Laykold, which is good news for Nole, but bad news for Rafa. Miami is played on the same surface, where Nadal never won despite 5 final participations.
Nadal will probably win the 21st GS title, but 25 grandslams is a big bite for him too. It will also be a difficult task for Nole, having to replicate McEnroe's or Wilander's career (both tennis players have 7 GS singles titles) to achieve 25 grandslams.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Nadal didn't beat Djoker at HC for almost 8 years and USO is no longer played at Deco Turfu. If Nadal wants to win another USO, he must avoid Djoker.
Djokovic hasn't defeated Nadal at the USO in 8 years. If Djokovic wants to win another USO, he must avoid Nadal.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
We are talking about today, and who would most likely win if Novak and Nadal met there, right? If so you just need to look at Novak´s record against Nadal in HC.

im not sure what we are debating anymore. is there anyone that think that Nadal would be the favorite against Novak today at the USO?
If you are discussing the USO, it is logical to look at Novak's record against Nadal at the USO, not other hard court tournaments. It's like comparing Nadal's record at the Madrid Open when discussing RG and concluding that Nadal is equally favorite to win Madrid than to win RG.
 
Top